Full-frame has been the center of attention for the past few years, which can result in it overshadowing other formats. But, with the right support, different formats have their place, and we all lose out if those options are neglected.

Full-frame gets its name – and much of its level of manufacturer backing – from the fact that it allowed photographers to use their film-era lenses as originally designed. The economics of sensor manufacture pushed the likes of Canon, Nikon and Konica Minolta into the use of smaller sensors at the start of the digital era, but the large user-bases, including professional users with existing lens commitments, along with significant R&D investment having been spent on building up lens lineups, created powerful incentives to move to sensors that captured the “full frame” that those film-era lenses were designed to project.

That same push from users wanting to keep using their existing lenses, along with an audience now familiar with the image quality of digital full-frame, ensured that similar pressures came to bear as the industry moved across to mirrorless, such that the dimensions of “35mm” film still dominate the pro and enthusiast-focused products from Canon, Nikon and Sony.

And this concentration of development efforts means “full-frame” is the most extensively supported format on the market. Canon, Nikon and Sony all make APS-C cameras, but the bulk of their lens investment has been focused on full-frame, just reinforcing that format’s primacy in their lineups.

Richard Butler / Mitchell Clark

But that doesn’t mean it’s the best format or even some kind of carefully considered optimum. Like all formats, it’s an arbitrary choice; in this instance, it dimensions came about because a German engineer decided to use silent-era cinema film the wrong way round, more than a century ago.

Every sensor format represents a trade-off between size, price and image quality. Larger sensors (or film formats) have an inherent image quality advantage because they have more light-capturing surface, but the lenses needed to provide any given field-of-view have longer focal lengths, making them bigger, heavier and more expensive. You can hunt around for exceptions: a particularly large or small body, or one especially small prime lens, but for the system as a whole, the overall trade-off remains true.

Full-frame digital can offer spectacular image quality, but even with the move to mirrorless, its cameras and lenses are larger than their film-era counterparts were. If the 35mm film format was a Goldilocks balance of quality vs portability and cost, then digital full-frame isn’t, because it offers a completely different balance. Better image quality, but with both a size and financial cost (and these differences are worth considering before you decide to point out that 35mm film could be called ‘small format’).

If you’re after something closer to the balance of size, price and image quality that 35mm film offered, you might find it in APS-C instead. Its smaller sensor means it doesn’t match the depth-of-field that 35mm film offered, but in terms of IQ, camera and lens size, it’s much closer to being a match. Just compare the size of the Nikon FE, Fujifilm’s X-T5 and Nikon’s Zf, paired with appropriate lenses, to confirm this for yourself.

Richard Butler

Likewise, for travel and wildlife in particular, the smaller Four Thirds format lets you further downsize the whole setup, giving lenses with longer reach or compact prime-lens combinations that let you travel light. Yes, you pay an image quality cost for moving to a smaller format, but you might end up with a shot that you simply wouldn’t get if your kit becomes too unwieldy to carry with you. 

The same is true in the other direction: 44 x 33mm Medium Format offers around a two-thirds-of-a-stop advantage over full-frame, at the same exposure, if you want better image quality. But those same downsides of larger, more expensive lenses are inescapable.

All formats are arbitrary size/price/image quality trade-offs. They may be popular or well-supported, but none is inherently best, because each has an innate compromise at its heart. And what makes sense for you, isn’t necessarily ideal for everyone.

Those other options, and that ability to choose a format that suits your kind of shooting, will only exist if those formats continue to be supported by manufacturers and by photographers. We lose that choice if we decide that some formats are lesser, or just stepping stones to another, rather than treating each as an entity in its own right.

This is the concluding article looking at why our perspective on cameras’ prices can seem out-of-step with other people’s initial reactions, on the day of launch. And it covers that fact the MSRPs always seem expensive, at first.

I don’t think we’ve reported on many launches without at least some people commenting, “it’s too expensive, what are they thinking?” or some variation thereof. And then comparing the price to the cost of an outgoing model, the price they paid for something in a sale, years earlier, or a second-hand deal on a completely unrelated camera type.

All of which is to miss the point. MSRPs aren’t the same thing as street prices and, although they’re quoted in the same units, they’re not particularly comparable.

MSRPs are the manufacturer’s opening gambit: they generally represent the highest price they’ll ever get for a product. An ‘early-adopter tax’, in many instances.

On the day of launch, all cameras look over-priced because their peers have been on the market for a while, their prices have softened somewhat, or they’ve explicitly been put on sale. And those MSRPs look even more overpriced if you compare them to the outgoing model, or a previous one because the manufacturer and retailers are trying to get rid of them, before they become impossible to sell.

Richard Butler / Mitchell Clark

But, just in case it needs saying: no manufacturer can introduce a new product at the narrow-to-no margin price that the outgoing model is being flogged-off at. Nor can they sensibly consider the second-hand prices of decade-old higher-end models, when setting prices.

This all varies somewhat between markets. In the US, list prices are more aggressively maintained than in Europe and the UK, where retailers have more freedom to offer some sort of discount fairly soon after the camera hits the shelves. This, along with Euro and Sterling prices usually being quoted including tax, is a big part of why US prices typically appear cheaper at first: because the US list price is set at a level that more people will have to actually pay.

None of which is an attempt to say you should just pay the MSRP on Day 1: quite the opposite. If an older, higher-end model is still floating around when the new model is launched and it suits your requirements, you should probably buy that. Our attempts to put pricing in a longer-term context aren’t an attempt to encourage you to buy something at full price.

But if history has repeatedly shown that those old models disappear from the market and the price of the new camera drops to a level comparable to others launched at the same MSRP, then it would be perverse and unhelpful to pretend we don’t know this. We want our reviews to still make sense a month or so after publication, which they won’t if we declare all new cameras “overpriced” despite what we know will happen next.

MSRPs let us see how things are positioned, relative to one another. They help us understand the price point, rather than the literal consumer price, of a camera.

Inflation muddies the waters still further, and prices are going up, but it’s worth remembering that launch prices have always looked too high. Even for that camera you’re now holding up as an example of what this new model should cost.

LK Samyang has started to tease the arrival of a 28-135mm F2.8 autofocus zoom for Sony E-mount, more than four months ahead of a February 2027 launch.

The company has only released close-up photos of the lens, so far, but has also published full specifications.

So we know it’ll be an extending zoom that expands from 151mm to 190mm long, as you zoom in (6.0-7.5″). We also know that it’ll weigh 854g (1.9lbs).

This makes it almost 30% longer than the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 and around 60% heavier, so you definitely pay a price for the additional flexibility the Samyang should offer. It’s around 27% longer and 50% heavier than Tamron’s 35-100mm F2.8, that doesn’t offer either the wide-angle or telephoto capabilities that this will.

It will also take an 82mm filter, rather than the 67mm filter used by the two Tamrons.

As with other recent LK Samyang lenses, its autofocus will be driven by a voice coil motor, which should be quiet and fast.

And, although no mention of them is made, the preview images show control ring grips that match the company’s lenses co-developed with Schneider-Kreuznach.

Camera prices, like most other prices, are going up. Part of this has been manufacturers focusing on high-end users, because they tend to buy the higher-margin products. But even attempts at making more accessible cameras can seem wildly expensive, compared to the prices we remember paying.

And that’s not a question of manufacturers being foolish or greedy. Whether we like it or not, we are living through a period of higher inflation than we’re used to.

This is the first of a two-part series looking at why the perspective on cameras’ prices in our reviews can seem out-of-step with other people’s initial reactions, on the day of launch.

Many of us lived through a more than twenty-year period of relatively low inflation. Prices of most things rose by around 2% per year, the cost of electronics fell, partly with the outsourcing of manufacture and through increased efficiencies and economies of scale. Wages typically kept pace with inflation, so things didn’t feel more expensive. Large sensor digital cameras got cheaper at first, then settled into a pattern of improving while maintaining their existing price.

Richard Butler

Sadly, that’s no longer the world we live in. It’s impossible to enumerate all the factors that got us to here without spiraling off into discussions of politics, but there have been a host of inflationary pressures over the past few years. Whether it’s supply-chain shocks, tariffs, wars putting pressure on oil and gas prices or out-of-control demand for processors and RAM, there’s more pushing prices up than encouraging them to drop.

Manufacturer’s materials and energy costs have gone up. Their component prices have become erratic. Their wages have gone up. Their logistics costs have increased. They cannot make cameras for the prices we used to pay. And, because of the way inflation works, the $1000 you had planned for your next purchase simply isn’t worth as much as that figure have been, five or six years ago.

I suspect it’s not just me who finds myself marveling at articles or footage from the 70’s showing a pint of beer priced in pennies or a gallon of ‘gas’ in cents. To a more modern ear, that just seems unimaginable, and it’s hard to see how we got from there to where we are. For most of my adult life, the changes have been incremental enough that I didn’t notice the jump. But thinking back to when I was at college, a pint in my favorite pub was £1.36. I visited the same pub this summer, and it was £5.30. Those little changes have ramped up into big ones in the past few years, and now the prices of my own yesteryears are beginning to seem impossibly distant. 

The same thing is happening with cameras, and just about all manufactured products: the value of money is dropping faster than any reduction in the cost of electronics (and a lot of key components are being bought for AI, before it can get anywhere near consumer products). Also, there’s every chance that it’s been some time since you last bought a new camera, and that precisely remembered reference point is no longer realistic.

None of which is to say that we have to like it. I’m not trying to defend it, or suggesting you should (or even can) just decide it doesn’t matter. But getting frustrated about it or insisting that the latest camera should cost what your last one did, pre-pandemic, isn’t going to change things. None of us enjoys it, but pretending inflation doesn’t exist or that rising prices are down to manufacturer misjudgment or greed doesn’t get you anywhere useful.

With the release of Adobe Camera Raw 18.7, we now have Raw support for the OM System PEN, bringing us one step closer to being able to complete our review.

As you might expect, the PEN’s performance is a match for that of the OM-5 Mark II, with which it shares a sensor and processor. This may seem obvious but we have to check, to be certain that our assumptions about shared components are correct and that there are no unreported changes to the processing. It also ensures that you can select the OM System PEN in our test scene, if you want to make any comparisons in future.

Its 20MP sensor captures a good level of detail (our test scene gives a slight benefit to 4:3 aspect ratio cameras, reducing the already minor difference between the PEN and the 24MP of the Canon EOS R10). In terms of noise the PEN’s performance is a little behind the larger sensor of the Nikon Z50II, but it’s not significantly noisier than the Canon, whose 1.6x crop sensor seems to slightly underperform expectations.

The PEN’s performance is entirely in keeping with what we’d expect to see from a modern sensor, backing up the results we got when shooting its sample gallery. We’ve already seen that the JPEG engine can produce a range of attractive results and these confirm that the technical underpinnings are sound.

The updated site may still be in beta, but we’re pleased to be able to announce the return of one of its most requested features: full-spec camera comparisons.

As well as big changes like this, we’ve been making continued improvements and fixes behind the scenes, but we’re now in a position to address one of the most common requests: a camera comparison feature that makes proper use of our specs database.

We appreciate how important it is to the community that the tool works well, and recognize that it wasn’t up to your expectations at the site’s launch. Having worked hard to build and maintain our database for more than 26 years, this was always something we planned to do, so we’re pleased to be able to add it back to the site.

The camera comparison feature works slightly differently than before but should also present the data in a way that’s both easier to read and to compare, especially on mobile. We’ll be making some adjustments in the coming days and weeks, and as always, we welcome your feedback about how it can be further improved.

This isn’t the end, by any means, though. A light theme version of the site is already being tested, to make sure it works reliably across the site, so please bear with us as we continue to improve the website.

The Canon EOS R8 II adds two of the features that many people felt the original model could have benefited from: an autofocus joystick and in-body image stabilization.

However, as well as making it a better camera, these additions, along with inflation, have made it a more expensive camera, putting it in direct competition with Nikon’s Z5II, which is our current pick of sub-$2000 full-frame cameras.

The Nikon has been on the market longer, so its price has softened a bit, but its list price is within $50 of that of the Canon, so it’s likely they’ll end up costing a similar amount. While the original R8 and, in some places, the original Z5 persist at reduced prices, these are some of the least expensive current models for anyone looking to join a full-frame system and are designed to act as the entry point to this part of the market.

Having used both cameras extensively, we thought we’d look at how they compare and which we think is better.

Headline specs

On paper the core specs of the two cameras are very similar: they have the same-sized sensors with comparable pixel counts, both have image stabilization and both include an AF joystick.

Beyond the core specs, it all becomes a little less clear-cut, with the Canon offering some benefits over the Nikon with regards weight, maximum burst speed and the ability to capture Raw at its fastest burst speeds and in its pre-capture mode. But there are probably more ways in which the Z5II is a stronger camera.

By taking a look at the main differences and when they play a role, it might help you decide which would be the better camera for you.

EVF/LCD

Mitchell Clark

The Nikon has a larger, higher resolution viewfinder than the Canon. The EOS R8 II is built around a smaller viewfinder panel, which is why its resolution is limited to 2.36M dots, which is 1024 x 768px. The Nikon has a larger panel, meaning it can offer higher magnification (a larger view) and 3.69M dot resolution, which equates to 1280 x 960px. This is a 25% increase in linear resolution, which is enough to make the view seem less pixelated, even with the greater magnification. The Nikon’s finder also goes brighter, giving a more realistic preview of highlights.

The Nikon’s rear screen is also a touch larger 3.2″ display with 1024 x 680px resolution, vs the Canon’s 3.0″, 900 x 600px display. The size is likely to make more difference than the roughly 14% difference in linear resolution. Both cameras have fully-articulated displays that hinge to the side.

Mechanical shutters

Another difference is that the Nikon has a full mechanical shutter, whereas the Canon has an electronic first curtain (/mechanical second curtain) shutter. This doesn’t make a huge difference for most real-world shooting, but one difference is that the Nikon can shoot at up to 1/8000 sec shutter speeds, whereas the Canon tops-out a stop earlier than that.

The Canon’s fully electronic shutter mode can go higher than this, but with a readout speed of around 1/70 sec, this can’t be used with flash and risks showing rolling shutter distortion with fast movement and banding with flickering lights.

Twin card slots

Richard Butler

The Nikon has twin SD card slots, while the Canon has just one. This isn’t likely to make a huge difference to any but the most risk-averse photographers. Dual card slots can offer a level of dependability that is essential for professional work, but is more a question of your risk comfort level ranged against your willingness to pay for multiple cards, for most day-to-day photography.

Video

Mitchell Clark

Things are less clear-cut when it comes to video. The Z5II can capture Raw video which might, if you’re from a photo background, sound like an immediate win for the Nikon. But, in practice, this generates a lot of data, requires a rather more involved workflow and doesn’t offer the same magnitude of benefit over 10-bit log footage as Raw does over JPEG, in stills.

By contrast, the Canon can record 4K/60, derived from 6K, full-width capture, whereas the Nikon has to crop in to an APS-C region, if you want to shoot footage for slow-mo moments. This makes it harder to maintain a wide angle-of-view and lowers quality on the Nikon. Both cameras shoot 10-bit log, with Canon’s C-Log3 being preferred by many editors.

Battery life

However, battery life is a much more decisive difference between the cameras. The Z5II uses the same 16Wh battery as the Z6 series modes, powering it to a rating of 350 shots per charge if you shoot using the rear screen or 330 if you use the viewfinder. The Canon uses a much smaller 7.5Wh battery, from which it delivers a rated lifespan of 270 and 150 shots per charge, for using the rear screen and viewfinder, respectively.

And, while the numbers that the standard testing offers up aren’t necessarily exactly those you’ll see in the real world, we’d generally expect a camera that measures as 330 shots per charge to last around twice as long as one rated at 150. The video ratings are also a little over twice as high for the Nikon. For anyone looking to use the camera for more than occasional snaps, this difference is likely to be very noticeable.

It’s one of the factors that makes the Nikon appreciably heavier, though, weighing in at 700g (24.7oz), making it 154g (5.4oz) heavier than the Canon.

Lens choice

Mitchell Clark

The final consideration is lens choice. Given all modern ILCs sit somewhere between ‘really quite good’ and ‘excellent,’ the availability of appropriate lenses is just as important as your choice of camera brand.

Both Canon and Nikon have built out fairly extensive lens lineups with a selection of low, mid and high-level lenses, in a good array of sizes and focal lengths. However, both have also tried to restrict access to their mounts to their own lenses plus a handful of lenses they’ve licensed third-parties to make: the majority of which are for APS-C models, but with some of Tamron’s full-frame options available for Nikon. The biggest difference, in this regard, is that unlicensed third party makers are offering increasing numbers of lenses for the Nikon Z-mount, whereas Canon has more effectively controlled the RF ecosystem.

In both instances, we’d recommend checking whether the lenses you think you might want exist at a price you’re willing to pay. And to check reports and reviews, if those lenses are made by third parties, as the autofocus performance in particular can vary significantly even within the same brand.

Summary

There are the hints the Canon has tried to make the EOS R8 II easier to use, with its Advanced Assist mode that is willing to automatically use multi-shot modes, where necessary, and the option of a simplified, results-focused Raw processing interface. However, the Z5II does have a button for directly accessing its Picture Control color modes, whereas the Canon has two distinct color systems, one of which can’t be accessed when shooting Raws, so in some ways the Nikon can be easier to use. The Canon’s menu is perhaps a tiny bit more logically grouped, but both are a little overwhelmed with options and will take a little time to learn.

Overall, the EOS R8 II and Z5II both offer a level of image quality and performance that you couldn’t previously get at this price and will be more than enough camera for a lot of photographers, even if inflation means they’re not quite the obvious bargains that their predecessors were.

The Canon EOS R8 II is the latest camera to keep size down by adopting an electronic first curtain shutter design. This isn’t the same thing as full electronic shutter and it has very few downsides, so here’s how it works and what those downsides are.

Perhaps an easier way to understand EFCS is to think of it as Mechanical Second Curtain Shutter. The exposure is started electronically but a normal mechanical shutter then comes down to end the exposure, meaning that, unlike full electronic shutter, you can end your exposure very quickly, rather than being limited by readout speed of your sensor.

This means EFCS doesn’t have the significant rolling shutter artifacts (banding under flickering light and distorted moving subjects) that all but the fastest sensors can exhibit. The fast end to the exposure also means it can usually sync with flashes up to the same speed as a fully mechanical focal plane shutter.

In fact, it can have a benefit over full mechanical shutters, in one regard: because there’s no physical shutter snapping open at the start of the exposure, it eliminates a key source of vibration that can cause shutter shock. Some cameras with full mechanical shutters switch across to their EFCS mode within certain shutter ranges for exactly this reason.

This is the reason we’ve seen an increasing number of cameras, particularly the ones where the manufacturer has focused on downsizing and on cost reduction. In most instances, EFCS lets you use a smaller, mechanically simpler mechanism, with very little disadvantage.

The downside

It’s not entirely without downsides, though. At very high shutter speeds, where the period during which the shutter is closing makes up a significant proportion of the exposure, you can experience bokeh truncation: part of the bokeh pattern getting chopped off.

DPReview

This happens because the physical shutter used to end the exposure sits some distance in front of the sensor, so light can creep around the edge of the shutter blades as it closes. But the electronic first curtain (progressively turning the rows of the sensor on to start the exposure) doesn’t have that gap, so the start of the exposure didn’t have that light bleeding around the edge of the ‘shutter,’ giving one side of the bokeh a hard cut-off. This results in out-of-focus regions that aren’t as blurred and may not have such attractive bokeh.

However, this only becomes visible at very high shutter speeds when using lenses with fast enough apertures to significantly blur the background.

The ‘hard-edged’ nature of the electronic initiation of the exposure also means that any banding effect (from the fast flicker of LED advertising displays or high-speed sync flash) can end up being better defined and more distracting than with a fully mechanical shutter, again because light creeping around the gap between physical shutter blades and the sensor surface can soften it somewhat.

For the vast majority of situations though, including flash sync, electronic first curtain (/mechanical second curtain) shutter, is every bit as good as full mechanical shutter.

The EOS R8 Mark II is a refreshed and up-specced entry-level full-frame mirrorless camera, adding in-body image stabilization and an AF joystick as part of a complete re-styling.

These changes and a 2026 price tag position it essentially head-to-head with Nikon’s Z5II, our current pick in this part of the market.

We’ve had a chance to shoot the EOS R8 II for an extended period and with an array of lenses, so we’ve used it for the everyday photo taking its designed for. We’ve also got some friends to stand around in a flowerbed, to make sure we got to see how it performed for portraits and people pictures.

Overall we found it to be a very likeable camera: relatively small, usefully light and with a pretty straightforward interface. It’s not overflowing with clever features, but it has a lot of what a lot of photographers might need at a price that’s a fair step below that of the more sophisticated EOS R6 III.

We go into more detail about what we liked and disliked in our review, but this gallery should give a sense for what the R8 II can do. All the shots are unprocessed, out-of-camera images, but all of them taken in the camera’s conventional Picture Style color modes because you can’t capture Raws if you switch across to the more effect-like Color filter modes.

As always, you can download the Raws or JPEGs to inspect or run through your preferred processing workflow, to see how they look.

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.

The Canon EOS R8 II is an entry-level full-frame mirrorless camera with a 24.2MP CMOS sensor. However, it’s gained in-body image stabilization and a joystick, addressing two of the biggest shortcomings of the original EOS R8.

Key specifications

• 24.2MP FSI CMOS sensor
• IBIS up to 7.5EV center/7EV periphery w/ lens coordination
• Up to 40fps bursts with e-shutter / 6fps mech.
• 1/2 second pre-capture at 40fps
• Full-width 4K video from 6K capture at up to 60p
• 2.36M dot OLED viewfinder (0.7x magnification)
• Optional accessories including grip extention and XLR-adapter

The EOS R8 II is launching at $1900, around $400 more than the original EOS R8 launched for, which Canon says is staying in its lineup. It’s worth noting that inflation since the original R8’s launch could be expected to push its price up by around $150 if it were launched today (and indeed the MSRP appears to have been adjusted up to that at time of writing), and that the EOS R8 II appears to be a slightly better specced, higher-positioned model, to the extent that we might even believe the claim that the two will be sold alongside one another.

Ultimately, it’s also the least expensive full-frame mirrorless camera Canon’s released with image stabilization by a wide margin, even before you take inflation into account. It’s also the company’s lightest camera in that category.

Index

• What’s new
• How it compares
• Body and handling
• Image quality
• Autofocus
• Video
• In use
• Initial impressions
• Conclusion
• Sample gallery
• Specifications
• Press release

Product photos: Mitchell Clark

What’s new

Image stabilization

The EOS R8 II has essentially the same sensor from its predecessor (itself adopted from the higher-end EOS R6 II), but it’s now stabilized with Canon promising up to 7.5EV of correction in the center with 7EV in the periphery. While those ratings are often optimistic, this should make it a bit easier to get sharper shots in low-light situations, assuming your subject isn’t moving. The EOS R8’s lack of IBIS was something we noted as a compromise in our review of it, so it’s nice to see it included here.

A new look

Mitchell Clark

Canon briefed that the EOS R8 II takes design cues from the T80 SLR of the 1980s, though its press materials show it alongside the later EOS 650, with which there’s a more obvious family connection (either way it’ll be entertaining if this distinctly subtle homage turned out to be the source of the many rumors of a ‘retro’ Canon body). To our eyes it looks as much like the original Sony a7 as anything in Canon’s own back catalog. Only nicer.

We think it’s a pretty sharp and attractive camera, especially with its EOS R3 / R1 (/Fujifilm GFX 100 II) style grip material and its low-profile viewfinder hump. The black-on black design with small, well-spaced buttons is something of a departure for Canon, but we rather like the miniaturized minimalism of it all.

Updated autofocus and burst improvements

Canon says it’s updated the EOS R8 II’s underlying autofocus algorithms, making them stickier than the ones in the original. It still has person, vehicle and animal recognition, as well as an auto mode, but gains the company’s Register People Priority mode, which lets you train it to recognize specific people and focus on their face above other ones it recognizes in the scene.

While the camera can’t shoot any faster than its predecessor, still capping out at 40fps in e-shutter mode, it can go for substantially longer with its buffer lasting 30% longer when shooting Raw and 58% longer in JPEG. In our tests, this equated to around 78 shots in Raw+JPEG, and 175 shots in JPEG-only, making the burst mode much more usable. The camera also dispenses with Canon’s Raw Burst mode, which produced a non-standard combined file from which you had to select your frames, and that was required for pre-release capture. Pre-capture is now just an item in the menu you can enable.

A host of new video features

While the EOS R8 II has the same top-line video capabilities as its predecessor – it can shoot oversampled 4K at up to 60p with no crop – Canon has added several improvements to make it easier to use. These are features aimed both at beginners, such as the slow-and-quick mode that lets you get slowed-down or sped-up footage at your preferred framerate straight-out-of camera, and video scene modes, as well as more advanced features from cameras like the EOS R6 V, such as fine-grained control over the camera’s auto white balance system, as well as white balance presets that can be assigned to buttons.

Mitchell Clark

The camera also introduces a new video feature, which lets you press a button to defocus the lens at a predetermined speed, racking to the lens’ closest focusing distance to produce an effect where your subject is slowly (or quickly) pulled out of focus, something that can be difficult to do by hand, especially with stills lenses. The lens will then stay focused to that distance unless you press the AF-On button, which will resume autofocusing. While it’s not quite as advanced as the focus pulling tools that companies like Panasonic build into their cameras, it’s a nice option to add a bit of production value to a video.

How it compares

The market for entry-level full frame cameras is a competitive one, with several capable options. The one most similar to the EOS R8 II is Nikon’s Z5II as it was also designed from the ground up to be a budget option. Both Sony and Panasonic address this part of the market with older models, rather than something directly tailored to it.

In fact Sony now has two older a7 models that sit above and below the price of the R8 Mark II: the 2018-vintage a7 III and the more modern, higher resolution a7 IV. We’re going to include the newer camera here, as its autofocus will be more competitive.

It’s heartening to see just how capable these cameras are, even if their price tags have crept up. The EOS R8 II’s specs are now much more closely matched to those of the Z5II, but its battery life in particular looks underwhelming, especially compared with the big block used by the Sony. The Canon’s video specs are pretty strong and this table can’t capture the likeability of the ergonomics and interface, but its higher price puts it up against some fierce competition.

Body and handling

Despite the significant visual changes, the EOS R8 II’s design is functionally quite similar to that of its predecessor. It winds up being a little heavier and larger, but still feels light and relatively small in the hand (depending, of course, on what lens you have attached). People with larger hands may find their pinkies dangling off the bottom of the camera – Mitchell certainly did – but, as with the RP and R8, Canon will sell a $90 extension grip to solve this issue.

While the design feels like a call-back to the Sony a7, we found the geometric pattern on the rubberized grip reminding us of the very special Bishamon-Tex material Fujifilm uses on some of its GFX cameras.

Controls

Mitchell Clark

The EOS R8 II has a recognizably plastic construction and feels relatively light, rather than hefty, in the hand. The rubberized grip and thumb rest means it sits quite comfortably in the hand and, while it doesn’t feel overtly rugged, it doesn’t give the sense of being flimsy, either. There’s no flex or rattle and it feels like it strikes a good balance between weight and solidity.

The headline feature of the EOS R8 II is that it now includes an autofocus joystick on the back, which its predecessor lacks. This means you’re no longer limited to using the touchscreen or four-way controller to place your autofocus point, which is, to us, a substantial upgrade to usability.

Beyond the joystick, the camera has Canon’s standard set of controls: there’s a mode dial, dual customizable top-plate control dials (the camera’s only dials, as there’s not one on the rear plate), several customizable buttons on the back, including one that defaults to AF On, a video record button (though you can set the camera to start recording with the shutter button in video mode), and an M-Fn button. By default, the latter lets you access a customizable menu that lets you adjust several parameters using the control dials, including ISO, drive mode, AF mode, white balance, flash exposure compensation, and more.

Mitchell Clark

All these controls are largely clustered on the right side of the camera, with the left side only having the menu button. This makes it relatively easy to operate with one hand, though we did find the occasional feature that would require you to confirm something with the far-away menu button.

While you can typically operate the camera without diving into the menus, they’re also relatively easily accessible. The EOS R8 II has the customizable “Q” menu – by default, accessed using a button in the center of the four-way controller – which gives you quick access to your most-used settings. The camera’s color-coded full menus will be familiar to anyone who’s used a Canon before, and are fully navigable using touch, the control dials, the four-way controller, or any combination thereof.

The camera no longer has a dedicated switch for going between stills and video mode, separate from the power switch. Instead, they’ve been merged into a three-way switch that moves the camera from being off, to stills, to video. In our experience, it’s very easy to accidentally overshoot stills and wind up in video mode when attempting to turn the camera on, especially if you’re in a hurry.

EVF and display

Mitchell Clark

The EOS R8 II has the same 2.36M dot viewfinder as the R8: the same OLED panel used an all cameras that are prioritizing compactness as part of their design. The optics in front of the panel deliver the same 0.7x magnification. Given Canon’s professional DSLR’s viewfinders tended to top-out at 0.76x magnification, this isn’t bad going, and the viewfinder is generally pretty nice to use.

The camera is sensible enough to disable the eye sensor when you flip the rear screen out, so you shouldn’t have problems with the rear screen blacking out if something gets too close to the viewfinder.

Ports

Mitchell Clark

The EOS R8 II has largely the same collection of ports as its predecessor, though there wasn’t much room for improvement. It has headphone and mic sockets for video, microHDMI and USB-C for charging and data transfer (at up to 10Gbps speed).

The camera’s single UHS-II SD card slot has also been relocated from inside the battery compartment to the side of the grip, making it easier to access if the camera is on a tripod.

Battery

Mitchell Clark

The EOS R8’s battery life was the one other area we, and many other reviewers, found lacking. Unfortunately, it’s the one thing Canon hasn’t touched, as the EOS R8 II uses the same 7.5Wh LP-E17 model, and is rated to get 270 shots per charge when using the rear screen and a pretty miserable 150 shots per charge with the viewfinder. These improve to 340 and 220 shots per charge, respectively, in power saving mode, but they’re still pretty low.

CIPA numbers always under-represent how many shots you’re likely to get in real-world usage, with getting double the number being pretty common. Still, those viewfinder figures are likely to mean carrying a second battery or some kind of power bank will be necessary. The use of a small battery was something we criticised on the original R8, and the addition of in-body stabilization only exacerbates the problem.

Image quality

Our test scene is designed to simulate a variety of textures, colors, and detail types you’ll encounter in the real world. It also has two illumination modes, full even light and low directional light, to see the effect of different lighting conditions.

The Canon EOS R8 II has the same sensor as its predecessor, so it’s no surprise that it performs the same, within the tolerances of our test scene. That means it overall has great excellent image quality with high levels of detail and low levels of noise. This remains true as you push into higher ISOs, though the II’s inclusion of IBIS means you’ll be able to improve image quality in some scenarios by using slower shutter speeds to gather more light.

It also performs very similarly to the Nikon Z5II, and both provide pleasing JPEG colors straight-out-of-camera. Whether you prefer the slightly more saturated and sharpened look of the Nikon or Canon’s slightly subtler processing will largely come down to personal preference.

Richard Butler

Images from the Sony a7 IV, which can be had for similar money these days, have a bit more detail thanks to its higher-resolution sensor. At high ISOs, noise performance is similar, viewed at comparable sizes, and which one has the better JPEG colors will again be a matter of taste, rather than one being objectively superior to the other.

Autofocus

The EOS R8 II has the latest version of Canon’s standard AF system, shared across the majority of its cameras. This offers eight AF point sizes, ranging from the very small “Spot AF” up to “Whole area AF,” where the camera selects a subject based on how near to the center and how near to the camera it is. In between these extremes are three flexible AF zones, which are rectangles whose height and width can be adjusted.

Each of these AF areas can be made to track whatever is under them, by pressing the “Info” button when you’re selecting an AF area. It’s worth noting that the display tells you the current setting, not the setting you’ll access by pressing the Info button.

On top of this you have the subject recognition modes: Human, Animals or Vehicles, with an Auto mode that will try to identify any of the subject types it’s been trained to recognize. You can restrict which of these options appears in the menu but, presumably because there are only three subject types, there’s no option to narrow the ‘Auto’ mode down to just selecting the subjects you expect to encounter.

Beyond this, there’s a menu option for telling the camera how it should expect subjects to respond (ie: whether it should refocus on or ignore another subject appearing in front of its current target). This is a simplified version of the system from Canon’s pro sports cameras and lets you easily fine-tune the AF response if its default behavior doesn’t suit your subject.

Richard Butler

The net result is an easy-to-use and pretty effective AF system that can be adjusted if it’s not giving the results you want. Most of the time we found you could select an AF point size, engage tracking and leave subject recognition turned on. The camera will focus wherever your AF point is, track whatever was under that point and use subject recognition to be more specific, when appropriate, but without getting distracted by recognized subjects away from the AF point, or by false-positives.

Rolling shutter:

One of the few things we encountered that gave us any real concern was that the tracking system (not the subject recognition system) will try to decide what object it thinks you’re trying to capture, and will draw a large box around it, overriding your chosen AF point size and meaning you can’t be specific about the exact point you want it to focus on. It’s worth being aware of this in situations where you want to pinpoint something very specific (one part of a flower, for instance).

For most of our use, in both stills and video, we found the EOS R8 II to be a very effective performer that is quick and easy to use. However, it’s worth noting that some of the less expensive lenses with STM motors can be a little slower and more clunky to focus. 

Video

Mitchell Clark

The EOS R8 II’s base video capabilities remain largely unchanged from its predecessor. It can record full-width 4K video at up to 60p, derived from 6K capture, and includes 10-bit, Log and HDR recording options. It gains “slow-and-fast” modes that will give you slowed-down or sped-up footage straight of of camera, rather than requiring you to adjust a clip’s playback speed to match your playback framerate in post.

It also features headphone and microphone jacks – though their placement means they can occasionally interfere with the screen’s articulation – and a multi-interface hotshoe which you can use to connect Tascam’s 4-channel recorder.

Canon has equipped the camera with a wide array of features, both for those who have never shot video before and more experienced users. For the former, there’s the auto mode that lets you control how blurry the background is (basically letting you adjust aperture without having to know that’s what you’re doing) and scene modes that automatically configure your settings to apply skin smoothing or override the camera’s face detection when you’re holding something up to the lens. (Thankfully, experienced videographers can also enable those settings in the standard video modes while retaining control over exposure, audio levels and more).

The EOS R8 II thankfully also gets Canon’s latest white balance system. Alongside inheriting the fine-grained controls from the EOS R6 V, it lets you set a custom WB without having to take a picture and go into a separate menu.

In our limited use, the autofocus system was reliable, and supports the same subject recognition modes that the camera’s stills mode does. And, as is typical for Canon, you can separate your photo and video settings quite well, even if it is a bit too easy to switch between them now that they’re assigned to the same three-position switch.

Like its predecessor, the EOS R8 II’s rolling shutter is very well-controlled across its modes, meaning you won’t have to worry about skewed lines in all but the fastest camera moves.

In use

The EOS R8 II is a camera that, for the most part, won’t present you with a lot of unpleasant surprises or asterisks. As you’d hope for a camera aimed primarily at new photographers and advanced beginners, it does its job largely without a fuss, without too much friction between you can getting the photo you want. It’s a camera designed with its audience in mind, rather than a more advanced one old enough to be sold at a more accessible price point.

With that said, it’s not like Canon has built the entire UI or menu system from the ground up, so, as with pretty much any camera, there are a few behaviors that may be a bit confusing to both newcomers and more seasoned shooters. Thankfully, the auto mode allows you to shoot in Raw… that is, unless you switch into the “Advanced” mode, which can composite multiple shots together in situations where a subject is backlit, or there’s high contrast.

Richard Butler

Outside of that mode, we appreciate Canon’s inclusion of in-camera Raw reprocessing (something that Sony omits in all of its models). However, the fact that there are actually two – a standard mode and one called “Creative Assist” – risks being a touch confusing, though you are able to choose a default.

Both are strangely disconnected from the color filter system. If you want to see what the photo you just took looks like in the camera’s new Positive Filmtone color mode, that’s too bad. Turn off Raw, go back to the part of color section of the menu, switch to the Color Filter mode, and take it again. (The camera doesn’t automatically disable Raw or offer to do it for you when you try to access one of the modes that doesn’t support it, you have to do it manually.)

Richard Butler

Canon has thankfully solved the incorrect “Enable” labeling for its AF tracking feature, but you can still find odd little things like that if you hunt for them. For example, it’s still a bit ambiguous as to whether you’re pressing the Info button to “Enable” part detection for car subject recognition, or if you’re turning it off. Still, the EOS R8 II’s menus are far from the most lost in translation that we’ve seen.

They can mostly be navigated using the dials, four-way controller, or touchscreen, though you’ll still occasionally find an area or two that only work with one or two of those options. The video selection menu is one such example, where you have to use the dials or screen to switch between the resolution, frame rate and codec sections. The latter also only has one option, making us wonder why it’s even there. Also, Canon occasionally insists on making you confirm an action by pressing the “Menu” button, turning what could’ve been a one-handed operation into a two-handed one.

We appreciate just how many options you have to customize the controls at your fingertips, using the M-Fn menu, Q menu and buttons. The layout is sensible for beginners – though it might take a second to get used to the fact that you can’t adjust exposure compensation until you’ve begun metering – but once you start figuring out what you want, you can really dive deep into finding the layout that works for you.

Initial impressions

By Richard Butler

Mitchell Clark

The EOS R8 II made rather a good first impression on me: the new design is pretty sharp, in an understated kind of way, but without undermining the ergonomics that Canon has carefully refined over multiple generations of camera. Just as with the recent PEN, I’m not a fan of the combined power/stills/video switch, but the rest of the camera feels nice.

You don’t, for a moment, think you’re getting an R6 III-level workhorse, but you’re not paying R6 III money for it. I have large enough hands that I’d definitely consider adding the optional add-on grip extension plate to stop my little finger wrapping under the bottom of the body, but it’s nice to be able to keep the camera small by omitting it, and I wouldn’t consider it an essential.

Inflation means the Mark II looks like a bigger step up than perhaps Canon intended, but the addition of in-body stabilization and an AF joystick mean you get recognizably more camera for your money and one that’s nicer to use, too.

The price essentially brings into line with the list price of Nikon’s Z5II, while also bringing the feature sets much closer to parity. Canon’s features for beginners, inherited from models such as the EOS R50 are arguably a little more powerful and hence welcoming, but they don’t necessarily provide much of a pathway across to taking full control of the camera.

Overall, then, there’s much to like, with the two biggest changes expressly addressing two of the most significant omissions of the Mark 1. However, the addition of IBIS just draws attention to the only major shortcoming that hasn’t been addressed: battery life.

Mitchell Clark

Although the R8 II promises a similar battery rating to the R8 when using the rear screen, its EVF rating is a pretty dismal 150 shots per charge. And, even if you factor-in how excessively conservative the CIPA standard numbers can be, a rating well under 200 shots per charge is going to mean having to constantly stay on top of keeping the camera charged, if you try to use it for much beyond occasional snapshots. A second battery or PD-compliant power bank would be worthwhile additions to any R8 II-based kit.

The bigger concerns, though, would be lens options, beyond the kit zoom. Canon, even more effectively than Nikon, has limited the choice of third-party AF lenses for its RF mount, making it essential to check whether the lenses you want to use are available.

Richard Butler

This was made very apparent to me when I was using the R8 II. I had access to the RF 35mm F1.8 Macro: a lens whose focus motor (and lack of AF limit switch) gives an unwelcome reminder of what 1990s-style screw-drive lenses were like, in its level of vibration and graunching, every time you half-press the shutter button. Conversely, the 85mm F1.4 VCM’s focus is swift, silent and smooth. Unfortunately, so is the movement of its aperture ring, which to me detracted from the photographic experience enough for it to constantly gnaw at me that it costs as much as this camera does. In both cases the results are excellent, and yet neither are lenses I’d choose to buy, distinctly narrowing my options in two of my favoured focal lengths.

If the lenses you want are available for the R8 II (and that may include adapting old DSLR lenses), then the R8 II is an excellent body for newcomers and first-time full-frame adopters. But, to me, being limited to the lenses Canon will let you have feels especially restrictive at the price-sensitive end of the market. Which is a shame, because the camera’s really rather good.

Conclusion

Anyone who’s used a Canon ILC won’t be surprised to find the EOS R8 II is a more-than-competent camera. Canon has been the world’s biggest camera maker for decades and that hasn’t happened by chance. Making mainstream cameras is something the company is extremely good at.

The EOS R8 II has a strong all-round feature set, pleasant ergonomics and delivers excellent stills and video. It addresses two of the biggest criticisms we had of the original R8: the absence of in-body stabilization and an AF joystick. Both additions are appreciable improvements to the new camera. Overall, it’s hard to call out major omissions that would limit a photographer’s growth.

The camera’s controls and menus are as easy to learn as those of any other companies, though that means they’ll still be a bit daunting to learn if this is your first camera. Trying to think as a beginner, it’s hard to see how the camera’s simplified, outcome-orientated Creative Assist modes and Raw processing interface would actually help you learn the camera. Likewise it feels like an odd choice to make the more exuberant color modes JPEG-only and unavailable for experimentation through the Raw conversion process: finding yourself stuck with a good photo with a poorly-chosen color response and having no way to undo it can be a really off-putting experience.

Richard Butler

At its heart, though, the EOS R8 II is an awful lot of camera, for a (by contemporary standards) pretty sensible price. The somewhat small viewfinder and need to add a grip extension if you have larger hands feel like minor gripes, all things considered.

For us, though, Canon’s aggressive control over its lens system is most acutely felt at the lower cost end of its lineup. Many EOS R8 II buyers are unlikely to be comfortable with the idea of buying lenses that cost significantly more than the body, which risks leaving them with relatively few choices. Or with the kinds of kit zooms and low-cost teles that are rarely the stuff of photographic inspiration.

Mitchell Clark

This is a personal choice, of course: if the RF-mount lenses you want are available, then the EOS R8 II is a very pleasant and capable camera, for the money. But it’s enough of a limitation that this and the rather limited battery life make it difficult for us to give a Gold award, especially given how good the competition is.

Scoring

8.8 out of 10

9.0 out of 10

9.0 out of 10

8.9 out of 10

9.3 out of 10

8.8 out of 10

9.0 out of 10

8.8 out of 10

8.3 out of 10

9.2 out of 10

8.7 out of 10

9.4 out of 10

Show all scores

Overall score

89%

Scores reflect competition at the time of release; cross-year comparisons may be misleading

Expert summary

The EOS R8 Mark II is a remarkably capable camera for the price: adding most of the key features missing from its predecessor. It's pleasant to use and leaves plenty of room to grow into.

Good for:

A wide range of photography Beginners looking for great IQ Casual action shooters and videographers

Not so good for:

Long shoots Specific, more challenging tasks Users looking to explore color modes

Reviewed on 3 minutes ago

Read in-depth review

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.

Canon EOS R8 II specifications

It’s increasingly likely that you’ll have heard the term LOFIC, and some of the excitement around the capability it brings. We spoke to Professor Eric Fossum, inventor of the modern CMOS image sensor, who turns out to have some involvement in the early development of the concept, to explain how it works and what it could mean for cameras in future.

LOFIC stands for Lateral OverFlow Integration Capacitor and is a different way of designing pixel circuitry that allows them to capture more light. Conceptually, it stems from a similar idea to the dual conversion gain sensors we’ve seen over the past 12 years, but the benefits it promises appear even greater.

A drip-fed explanation

Fossum, now a Professor at Dartmouth College, uses the metaphor that capturing light is like collecting rainwater in a series of containers or buckets.

We’re going to slightly complicate the metaphor to encompass the concept of “conversion gain,” which is the relationship between the number of photoelectrons coming from the light-sensitive photodiode in each pixel and the size of the electrical voltage signal that’s then read out (measured in Volts per electron). 

In CMOS sensors, photoelectrons captured in a small bucket (smaller capacitance) give a proportionally bigger signal when read out than the same number would, if captured in a larger bucket (larger capacitance).

Abby Ferguson

So a small bucket is well suited to low light (fewer photoelectrons) but you need a much larger one for capturing a lot of light, so that you don’t overfill the bucket.

In a LOFIC sensor, instead of one, we have both a small and a large bucket. The charge from the photodiode starts to collect in the small bucket, but if it exceeds its capacity, it overflows into the second, larger bucket. (Fossum called this “cascaded integration” in an early patent)

When it comes to readout, we measure the small bucket first. Because the charge was captured in a small bucket (with high conversion gain) we get a large signal that overwhelms any other noise that might get added later in the process. This gives us nice clean shadows and low-light images.

In a LOFIC sensor, we can then connect the two buckets together, combining their capacity (so, lower conversion gain) and adding in any overflowed charge. We then read out this combined signal. If we didn’t capture very much light, we can just use the first readout result. But if the small bucket was full, we can then use the second, combined readout, instead, giving us much more capacity for highlights.

Unlike the dual conversion gain system, Fossum points to the key benefit: “you don’t have to choose in advance.” And, as he points out, there’s no reason this system has to be limited to two buckets.

Why it matters

In practice, this means sensors that can tolerate a lot more light. And its implementation in relatively small, high-resolution sensors, suggests that space constraints aren’t a problem, at least not once you can use stacked sensor fabrication.

In the Osmo 4P we’ve seen DJI claim 17 stops of DR, which is an extraordinary number for a Type 1 sensor. This puts its DR on a par with much larger sensors (though doesn’t mean its image quality will match them). In its implementation, you can see how the additional dynamic range can be used.

The 4P’s camera that uses LOFIC technology is the only one that needs to use the new D-Log2 profile: a profile designed to accommodate more dynamic range. Interestingly, the base ISO of D-Log2 (the setting at which it captures maximum DR) appears to be 1600, suggesting that it’s being exposed to capture two additional stops of highlights compared with the ISO 400 base sensitivity of D-Log profile used for the conventional sensors.

However, the D-Log2 mode also lets you expose this same sensor state all the way down to ISO 100: clipping those additional highlights but using more exposure to capture the remaining tones, and thus boosting tonal quality. 

This gives us an idea of what LOFIC could bring to dedicated cameras: a choice of greater highlight capture or higher quality captures with the same highlight cutoff point as existing sensors.

After nearly a decade of sensors getting faster but not really offering improved image quality, LOFIC technology might be the step forward we’ve been waiting for.

Interestingly, Fossum – who is responsible for inventing the active pixel CMOS image sensor that virtually all modern cameras are based on – invented an early version of this concept, but the successors to the company he’d worked for instead concentrated their efforts on the simpler dual conversion gain system. A team at Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, independently developed LOFIC as we’re now seeing it, citing Fossum’s Micron patent in their LOFIC patent, but proposing a more modern implementation.

I’m not sure how it took us so long to get back to this point, but in my head, the launch of the OM System PEN marks the return of a time when keen photographers have some really good choices for travel. 

Not travel photography as in ‘spend thousands of dollars to go to Iceland or Namibia, and drag your medium format setup to painstakingly capture one perfect desktop background,’ but a camera I can carry with me to document my trip.

Between the Fujifilm X100 VI, the Panasonic L10 and the OM System PEN, photographers once again have a choice of conveniently-sized cameras with a good level of control, whether they prefer a prime lens camera, a fixed zoom compact or the lens choices of mirrorless. They’re all pretty small, they’re all fairly pretty, and they’re all usefully totable.

Richard Butler

When I first started at DPReview, the options available were a DSLR, if you wanted decent image quality, or a (literally) compact camera, which you could carry around, but whose images you would probably be disappointed by. In between were the supposed “bridge” cameras, which inexplicably adopted some of the size of a DSLR with the image quality of a compact, rather than offering any sort of useful middle ground between the two.

This is why I’ve always loved larger-sensor enthusiast compacts with bright lenses (LX3, XZ-2, G7X), and why I can remember running to the Olympus stand as Photokina 2008 first opened, so I could share some of the first photos of the original Pen mockup.

Richard Butler

I love a camera that’s easy to always carry with me but also one that delivers sufficient image quality to make that worthwhile. And for a while there, we got close: the Fujifilm X100, the Panasonic GF1 and GX1, amongst others. Then the options started to disappear.

The past few years have seen a lot of camera makers focus on full-frame cameras, but even the best attempts at downsizing those aren’t great. Putting aside that Panasonic S9 and original Sony a7C are among my least favorite cameras of the last few years, my concerns aren’t so much the bodies as the body/lens combinations. Yes it’s easy to cherry-pick one particular lens when trying to make “it’s almost as small” arguments. But, even on the rare occasions where that pancake is a focal length I want to use, and the word “almost” isn’t being tested to breaking point, there’s still little hope of building a usefully small kit.

Richard Butler

I’ve just got back from a short vacation with the PEN and found it to be a very amiable companion. I took the 12mm F2.0, 17mm F1.8 and 14-42mm, which gave me a remarkable degree of flexibility in combinations I could take everywhere with me. Add in a 45mm F1.8 and it would cover an awful lot of my favored photography, in the space of a small shoulder bag.

The PEN makes a very welcome addition to the existing options of a Fujifilm X100 VI, which is built around my preferred single focal length, and the Panasonic L10, whose lens covers a very useful range with a combination of brightness and size that even the PEN would struggle to match. Add to these the Ricoh GR IVs, with a 40mm-equiv. “x” version in the works, and you have some really interesting options.

All of these cameras is imperfect in one way or another: the L10’s lens isn’t everything you might hope for, the PEN’s AF is distinctly quirky and after six iterations, Fujifilm has managed to make the X100 VI that bit more fiddly than it needs to be. But, for all those gripes, it’s lovely to have choices that don’t take over my entire carry-on.

Vamanos! Allonz-y! However you say it; let’s just GO!

We received the PEN just in time to shoot the studio scene before I headed off to the UK for a short break. This meant I got to spend a chunk of time using it the way it’s intended: for everyday and travel photography.

Below are the results from that time: photos of the places and friends I visited, photos from Seattle, London, Northampton and Gloucestershire. What should come across is the degree to which I was able to carry the camera with me, much of the time, so I have a couple of late-night photos, I was able to grab a shot of a friend, mid-laugh: something I might not have got if I had to dig into a camera rucksack to use a larger camera.

I tried to make use of a selection of lenses (something made easier by having a choice of compact Micro Four Thirds options), and made sure to include a hand-held high-resolution mode sample and some side-by-sides in a selection of the camera’s color modes. As usual, you can download the Raws to run through your converter of choice, once support arrives.

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.

Earlier this week, Sigma announced the 20-60mm F2.8-4 DG Contemporary, a surprisingly small full-frame lens that offers better range and a faster aperture than most full-frame kit lenses, in a package that’s smaller than any of its immediate rivals.

It arrived just before a planned trip to the UK, so I got to test my theory that it’d be an excellent replacement for most kit zooms, with the size and flexibility that would work well for travel.

This is my initial response, as I unboxed it:

And below are the samples Mitchell and I shot in both Seattle and London.

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing; we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it. 

Thanks to Panasonic for the loan of an S1RII to shoot this gallery. All images were processed using our standard lens workflow in Capture One, with the manufacturer’s distortion correction applied but no correction of vignetting. The profile corrects a large amount of barrel distortion at the wide end and a minor amount of pincushion distortion at the long end. We’d consider it an essential part of the lens’ optical design.

The OM System PEN brings a lot of camera (interchangeable lenses, twin command dials, an EVF, in-body stabilization and a rated degree of weather sealing) to not a lot of camera (it’s usefully small).

Here’s our hands-on overview of a camera that brings together familiar components in a form that we haven’t seen (at least in North America) for some time.

It’s more an E-P7 with a viewfinder than a direct PEN-F successor, but that delivers an interesting, relatively affordable option for everyday and travel photography.

If you want to read about the PEN in more depth and see more sample images, check out our written review.

In a somewhat cryptic statement, Ricoh has said it is ending production of all current Pentax K-series DSLRs. However, it also says it will “continue to pursue the shooting style that is unique to SLR cameras.”

Ricoh says: “we will leverage the K-mount legacy that was built over more than half a century, to develop a new series of digital SLR cameras based on an entirely new concept,” but warns “it will take time for these products to come to life.”

It says it will provide updates as development continues.

The OM System PEN is a compact, Micro Four Thirds camera built around a 20MP sensor and aimed at travel and everyday use. It riffs on the concept of the much-loved PEN series but delivers something a little distinct from its predecessors.

It’s not a like-for-like replacement for 2016’s PEN F, but it brings some of the ideas from that model to the more affordable end of the market.

Key specifications

• 20.4MP Four Thirds (226mm²) CMOS sensor
• In-body image stabilization rated to 5.5EV
• On-sensor phase detection focus with human and dog/cat recognition
• 2.36M dot EVF
• Up to 30fps shooting (with AF and AE locked), 8fps mech
• Multi-shot modes, including high resolution, Live ND, Live Bulb, Live Time, Live Composite
• 410 shot/charge battery life rating

The PEN is available now for around $1000, body-only. This is significantly lower than the $1200 launch price of the PEN-F back in 2016, especially once you consider that inflation makes that equivalent to around $1700 today.

Index

• What’s new
• How it compares
• Body and handling
• Autofocus
• Image quality
• Video
• In use
• Conclusion
• Sample gallery
• Specifications
• Press release

What’s new

The PEN is the first top-tier entry into the line in five years, and the first time in a decade that the series will be sold in North America. It’s essentially a blend of the two models that preceded it: primarily the mid-priced E-P7 but also the enthusiast PEN-F.

From the E-P7 it gets the lighter, lower-cost plastic construction, rather than the metal body that had marked out the ‘big’ PENs before it. It also inherits the two-position color mode switch on the front plate, and the simpler dial layout. But, crucially, from the PEN-F it gets an electronic viewfinder, built into the top corner of the body: making it only the second PEN model to feature one.

It also foregoes the stacked sensor features in the OM-1 and OM-3 models, presumably also in the name of cost reduction, meaning it has more in common with the OM-5 II.

The PEN’s color mode switch gives you access to eight color and mono modes that can be modified in interesting ways

These changes start to make sense when OM System talks about its target audience for the camera: a mixture of enthusiasts who want a small mirrorless camera and users looking to buy their first camera for travel and everyday photography.

The lower-cost construction and significant overlap with the OM-5 II’s componentry are reflected in its significantly lower launch price (there’s enough of a difference that it’s less expensive in money terms, despite a decade of inflation).

The ninth-generation TruePic processor means it gains more up-to-date autofocus than the PEN-F or E-P7 (now with Dogs & Cats recognition mode, rather than just human detection) but the camera is still limited to 8-bit video at up to 4K/30 and its multi-shot modes are less extensive and significantly slower than on more expensive stacked-sensor models such as the OM-3.

How it compares

There’s no direct competitor to the OM System PEN, if you’re looking for a small, rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. You can either opt for a similarly-priced APS-C model, such as the Fujifilm X-T30 III or Nikon Z50 II, but those are both SLR-styled models with no image stabilization. The alternative is the more expensive, metal-bodied X-E5, which is much more in keeping with the PEN’s styling but closer to the PEN-F market positioning, in terms of price.

Finally, if you just want a small, stylish camera and can live without the ability to change lenses, the Panasonic L10 comes into play.

Despite its more modest pricing, the PEN stacks up pretty reasonably against its peers, on paper. It’s interesting to note that you get the same viewfinder panel, regardless of how much you spend, because it’s the only one made in this smaller size. The PEN is the only camera in this cohort to offer a standardized rating of environmental protection, even if it is the relatively modest IPX1 level.

However, while the PEN’s multi-shot modes are more sophisticated than its (quasi) peers, its video is distinctly outdated. And, though it doesn’t necessarily show through in the specs, so are some aspects of its autofocus performance.

Body and handling

Richard Butler

The PEN feels pretty solid, despite its construction primarily being engineering plastics, rather than metal casing used from the E-P1 up to the PEN-F. The body gives the sense of being made of quite thick material, meaning it feels suitably weighty in the hand, without being overly heavy.

The small front grip and thumb rest make the camera easy to keep hold of, and we found the two (customizable) command dials to be well-placed, whether you’re holding the camera to your eye or not.

The back of the camera is somewhat cluttered, though, with a CP button (accessing your choice of Computational Photography modes) next to the thumb rest being just one of six buttons crammed into the right-hand control array, in addition to a small four-way controller that is also used to access key features. In the absence of an AF joystick, this four-way controller, along with the camera’s touchscreen, becomes the main method for positioning the AF point.

Richard Butler

The PEN still has a single SD card slot, somehow still only supporting UHS-I cards. Its USB connector has been modernized to a Type C socket, but the underlying interface is still a distinctly dated 480Mbps USB-2.0 type. There’s also a micro HDMI port and a mic input, but there’s no headphone socket for audio monitoring, which should give a pretty clear signal about the PEN’s focus.

As with the OM-5 II, the PEN does not support the excellent little FL-LM3 rotatable, bouncable flash, which is no longer made. However, there are alternatives such as Godox’s iT30 and iT32/X5 combinations that provide small, flexible options.

Viewfinder

Richard Butler

The PEN becomes only the second model in the series to feature a built-in viewfinder. It’s the same 2.36M dot (1024 x 768px) finder as in the PEN-F, ten years ago. It’s worth noting, though, that this is the highest resolution finder made in the smaller 0.39″ format, which is why we continue to see it appear in cameras where size is the key focus of the design.

Screen

The rear screen is the same, fully-articulated 1.04M dot touchscreen that featured on the PEN-F. This is likely to divide audiences, with some people interpreting flip-out screens as being a sop to video shooters. However, we’ve been told by multiple manufacturers that, in surveys, about 50% of photographers prefer this screen arrangement. So, while street and candid shooters are likely to miss the tilting screen that allows more discreet camera operation, the wider target audience, looking to use the PEN for travel, are likely to appreciate the ability to fold the screen inwards, to keep it protected.

Battery

Richard Butler

The PEN uses a new battery pack, the rather compact BLS-7, it’s a 7.74V, 1285mAh unit, which means it has a capacity of 10Wh, rather than the 8.7Wh of the older, physically larger BLS-50 or the 9.0Wh of the PEN F’s BLN-1.

OM System says this delivers a battery rating of 400 shots per charge, when tested using the standard CIPA method, presumably based on the use of the more power-efficient rear screen. As usual, these ratings tend to significantly underestimate the real-world endurance of a battery, and getting twice the rated number is pretty common, depending on how you shoot.

In use

The PEN’s operation will be immediately familiar to OM System (and Olympus) users, though potentially somewhat overwhelming to most newcomers. For instance, the barrage of icons and settings displayed when you turn the camera on includes L8 in large letters at the top right of the screen, indicating that if you press the REC button on the top of the camera, you’ll get 8-bit video in a Long Group-of-Frames codec. Which doesn’t feel like essential information in stills mode, on a fairly stills-focused camera that can only capture 8-bit video.

Still, once you’ve learned your way around the screen, you’ll probably come to appreciate the Super Control Panel: a settings display showing most of the camera’s key settings in an interactive array. Tap on the setting you want to change, spin one of the command dials and you’ll find you have semi-quick access to just about all the settings you might want to change. Which makes me wonder if the camera needs quite as many buttons as it has. But still…

Six of the camera’s buttons are customizable, plus the button on any lens that has one. Alternatively, you can give up two of your custom buttons (and the ISO button) and dedicate the four-way controller to give direct AF point control, rather than having to press ‘left’ first. Buttons can be customized to have a different function in video or Slow & Quick modes, too.

This degree of customization extends to the dials, whose function can be dictated per exposure mode, and again, separately for stills and video. Likewise, once you’ve worked out which of the camera’s computational photography modes you actually use, you can narrow the function of the CP button to only invoke those.

Richard Butler

The menus are relatively easy to navigate, with a decent degree of signposting, meaning you’ll quickly get a feel for where different types of setting are likely to live. However the number of options and the level of customization is extensive, bordering on the excessive, so things can seem a little intimidating, initially.

Like the more recent OM cameras, the PEN’s ‘film’ color modes, selected with the switch on the front of the body, can have the saturation levels of different hues adjusted, to tailor their response. You can also tweak the highlights, shadows and mid-tone response, giving you a lot of flexibility. This comes especially handy in conjunction with the in-camera Raw conversion feature, as it means you can make very specific adjustments to your images while still using the camera’s choice of attractive JPEG modes.

In keeping with the camera’s attempt to attract first-time camera users, the PEN has a series of Scene modes on its dial. These cover a decent range of common shooting scenarios and are able to invoke the multi-shot modes, if needs be. But we’re still not sure how many people will buy a dedicated camera, only to use restrictive preset modes that are less clever and flexible than the ones on their phones.

In-camera Raw conversion

Most brands offer in-camera Raw conversion at this point, but OM Systems’ remains one of the most comprehensive and powerful. This is especially useful on a camera designed with travel in mind, where you may want to be able to share the things you’ve seen without wanting to boot up your laptop.

OM System’s JPEG color, particularly its Neutral and Film modes can deliver really attractive results, so it’s nice to be able to tweak and exploit these, rather than trying to match them in a 3rd-party Raw converter.

The camera gives you a choice of simply applying your current settings to an Raw file, or defining two presets, so that your preferences are saved or can be applied to multiple images from a batch. There are a few awkward inconsistencies, though: the camera’s standard color modes let you adjust hightlights, shadows and midtones from within the conversion interface, the Film modes don’t, and instead take their highlights, shadows and midtones settings, along with any hue-specific saturation adjustments you’ve made to them, from the camera’s current settings, even if you’re trying to use a preset.

This means that you can, for instance, make WB fine-tune modifications or adjustments of the film modes that aren’t in the Raw conversion interface by changing the camera’s current settings, but it means applying the result, backing out of the converter, adjusting the camera’s settings, then trying again: meaning making iterative adjustments can be quite frustrating.

This doesn’t give the near infinite level of flexibility that, say, Panasonic’s LUT-based image processing does, but means you don’t have to mess around with exploring and downloading profiles: you can just tweak the already pleasant in-camera options.

Autofocus

The PEN uses the standard OM System AF interface, which gives you a choice of 6 AF point sizes, from small to covering the entire area over which the camera can focus. The smallest size isn’t especially small and can be moved to one of 121 positions, which puts a limit on the maximum level of precision you can achieve.

Human or Pet recognition can be engaged on top of this system. However, unlike most cameras, recognized subjects are prioritized over your AF point. So if the camera thinks it recognizes a subject, it’ll focus on that, irrespective of where you’ve asked it to focus. If there’s more than one subject in the frame, your chosen focus point will dictate which subject it should focus on. There’s a menu setting to specify whether the camera prioritizes recognized subjects or your AF point (and you can assign the AF-On and shutter button behaviors differently), but if you choose to prioritize your chosen AF point, subject recognition is completely ignored: it won’t focus on an eye or face where you’re asking it to focus.

Richard Butler

In practice, we found both recognition modes quite prone to false positives and that they’d try to focus on irrelevant subjects. Which is a particular problem, given that recognized subjects override your chosen focus point. Between these two factors, it becomes essential to position your AF point precisely (made a little more frustrating on a camera without an AF joystick), and to have a means of disengaging or over-riding the subject recognition system. It’s eminently usable, once you’ve got a feel for how it works, but it’s nothing like as effortless as the best modern cameras that simply focus where you ask them and then utilize subject recognition when appropriate.

The PEN’s general AF tracking system (for subjects the camera hasn’t been trained to recognize) feels pretty dated and significantly less sticky or dependable than its peers. We’ve become used to leaving cameras in tracking mode, selecting a target and recomposing at will, which isn’t something we’d recommend doing with the PEN. Other than a few shots where flare and bright highlights seemed to have confused the AF system, we were able to get a solid hit rate with the PEN, but don’t expect it to be action-ready and do be prepared to have to make more interventions to get the result you want.

Image quality

As you might expect, and as already seemed to be the case from the day-to-day shooting we conduct as part of every review, the PEN’s performance is a match for that of the OM-5 Mark II, with which it shares a sensor and processor. Our studio scene confirms this to a very fine degree.

Our test scene is designed to simulate a variety of textures, colors, and detail types you’ll encounter in the real world. It also has two illumination modes, full even light and low directional light, to see the effect of different lighting conditions.

Its 20MP sensor captures a good level of detail (our test scene gives a slight benefit to 4:3 aspect ratio cameras, reducing the already minor difference between the PEN and the 24MP of the Canon EOS R10). In terms of noise the PEN’s performance is a little behind the larger sensor of the Nikon Z50II, but it’s not significantly noisier than the Canon, whose 1.6x crop sensor seems to slightly underperform expectations.

The PEN’s performance is entirely in keeping with what we’d expect to see from a modern sensor, backing up the results we got when shooting its sample gallery. We’ve already seen that the JPEG engine can produce a range of attractive results and these confirm that the technical underpinnings are sound.

As with all formats, there’s a fairly direct size / image quality trade-off being struck, meaning you lose something in terms of peak image quality in order for the camera to be able to maintain its travel-friendliness, even when you take lenses into account.

For many people, that’ll be a trade-off worth making: the use of a Four Thirds sensor defines both the upper limit of its image quality, but also how small the camera/lens combinations can be. So while some manufacturers are focused on trying to make smaller cameras built around larger sensors, there’s a physical limit to how small the appropriate lenses can be, meaning you’re likely to carefully pick and choose to keep the package small, and you’ll need to revert to larger setups to attain their full IQ potential.

Richard Butler

The hand-held high resolution mode, that shots a series of shots in e-shutter mode, then combines them, in-camera, means it’s possible to boost the PEN’s image quality a little for select shots of relatively static subjects, and the tripod-based high-res mode, which is able to precisely position the sensor for optimal alignment, does an even better job. Both take a long time to process, but are nice to have in your back pocket, when the situation suits.

Video

Video is perhaps the most glaringly outdated aspect of the PEN, with the camera limited to 8-bit capture and topping out at 4K/30. There’s also no headphone socket, so no way of monitoring audio, when you’re recording, which risks you getting back to your computer and finding that distracting noises or incorrect recording levels have rendered your footage unusable.

The PEN can capture video using the OM Log400 curve, which offers some additional flexibility, in terms of tonal adjustment and color grading, but it’s limited, to say the least, in an era where 10-bit Log is pretty much standard. On the plus side, you can apply almost all of the camera’s color modes and even Art filters to your video, if you want distinctive-looking footage, straight out of camera.

There’s an S&Q (Slow and Quick) position on the power/mode switch but the available options are limited by the camera’s relatively modest video speeds. You can capture 1080 footage at up to 120 frames per second, for 1/5th-speed slow-mo.

Between the modest spec and less-than-dependable autofocus performance in video, the PEN wouldn’t be on our list if we were recommending a camera for someone looking to shoot a lot of video. Its strengths lie much more on the photography side of the spec sheet, so we would have preferred that the video mode wasn’t given such a prominent position on the power switch.

Conclusion

The OM System PEN is a delightful combination of size, capability and price. It’s not especially cutting-edge nor quite as easy to use as it wants to be, but it still succeeds in being engaging to operate, easy to carry with you and able to deliver attractive results at a price that seems eminently reasonable. It’s a combination that the rest of the industry seems to have forgotten how to deliver.

Richard Butler

Its autofocus isn’t as sophisticated as that of its peers. It can’t track subjects moving around the scene as well as its contemporaries, nor can it react to fast movement as reliably, and between the way it operates and how dependable it is, its subject recognition modes require more user input than on other cameras. And yet, for the kinds of everyday and travel photography we expect the PEN to be used for, this isn’t a fundamental concern.

Richard Butler

No, the PEN isn’t as seemingly effortlessly capable as some other mirrorless cameras can feel, and its comfort zone is somewhat narrower than theirs. But set the four-way controller to position the AF point and have a button to toggle subject recognition on and off and it’ll do most of what you ask of it, because no one is expecting the PEN to ‘turn its hand to a bit of sports and action shooting.’

Richard Butler

The PEN’s sensor size means it’s at its best during the daytime, but balanced on the other side of the fulcrum is the ability to offer small lens/body combinations for a range of activities. With the 12mm F2, 17mm F1.8, Panasonic 20mm F1.7 or 45mm F1.8, you can maintain a compact form factor with a high degree of portability that arguably only Fujfilm’s rather more expensive X-E5 comes near to. And the multi-shot modes will let you boost the camera’s image quality for relatively static scenes.

Experienced OM System users will welcome the ability to customize much of the camera’s operation, while newcomers may feel intimidated at first. Most of it can be safely ignored at first, and learned when you want to optimize the camera’s behavior (though we’d recommend engaging 0 sec Anti-Shock, straight out of the box).

The PEN can be the kind of travel companion that you will, on occasion, find somewhat irritating. The kind that sometimes won’t always do exactly what you want to do. But also the kind that you’re so glad you took with you. And with whom you’ll create memories you wouldn’t otherwise get to keep.

Scoring

Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category. Click here to learn about what these numbers mean.

8.5 out of 10

8.6 out of 10

9.2 out of 10

7.8 out of 10

8.5 out of 10

8.2 out of 10

7.7 out of 10

8.0 out of 10

8.3 out of 10

7.2 out of 10

7.8 out of 10

9.2 out of 10

Show all scores

Overall score

84%

Scores reflect competition at the time of release; cross-year comparisons may be misleading

Expert summary

The OM System PEN is both charming and quirky. Some of its technology and performance is a little dated but this is reflected in its price. Overall it offers a level of image quality, usability and portability that no one else seems to have thought to offer.

Good for:

Travel, Everyday photography

Not so good for:

Sports, Action, Video

Reviewed on October 6, 2026

Read in-depth review

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.

OM System PEN specifications

Ricoh has confirmed it is developing an “x” variant of its GR IV enthusiast compact. The GR IVx will be built around an all-new 40mm equivalent F2.8 prime lens.

The new model will use the same 26MP BSI CMOS APS-C sensor as the recent GR IV, rather than the 24MP FSI chip used in the GR IIIx.

Ricoh

The company has released the full planned spec of the camera, suggesting development is already well advanced. Details include a lens with 8 elements in 6 groups, including 3 aspheric elements, which is a more complex design than the previous model.

As with the 28mm-equiv GR IV, the specs say we’ll can expect improved startup times, a move to 5-axis image stabilization and the adoption of the larger DB-120 battery. It will also see the adoption of faster WiFi 5 standard.

Ricoh says the GR IVx will be launched in “Winter 2026 or later,” with no details of price yet given.  For reference, the GR IV hit the shelves three months after its development was announced.

It’s been over a month since we launched the new DPReview.com website, and we wanted to give you an update.

We realize that a lot of the work we’ve been doing hasn’t been especially public-facing, so it hasn’t necessarily been obvious that this really is a Beta: we are listening to feedback and we are continuing to improve the site.

As well as fixing some glitches around user logins, we’ve been doing a lot of work to ensure that the site always delivers completely untouched, out-of-camera JPEGs, when you click through or download an image. This isn’t a requirement that the CMS software we’re using is usually expected to maintain, with the consistency that we need. So it’s meant a lot of work behind the scenes to ensure that we can live up to the high standards that we demand and that you can expect.

OOC images and HDR support

As a result of this work, we can now be confident that “Ultra HDR JPEG” files: JPEGs with HDR gain maps embedded, can be viewed correctly when you click through, but also when they appear within articles, if you have a compatible screen and browser.

HDR imagery is only likely to become more accessible and more prevalent in the coming years, so being able to correctly represent these files was important to us: both so that we can show the progress as it’s made and because it ensures we’re delivering all images exactly as they came out of the camera.

This may seem esoteric but it’s fundamental to the way our reviews are conducted: we provide unedited files precisely so you can draw your own conclusions, rather than just take our words for it.

Light mode and improved camera comparisons

With this done, we’re continuing to work on projects that you’ve been requesting and things that will be more obviously visible to readers of the site and members of the community. These include a “light” version of the site for editorial content, for those people who don’t like the site’s original white-on-black appearance.  We’re also working on a more advanced camera comparison tool that makes more extensive use of our camera specs database.

Neither is ready yet, but they’re just two of the more obvious features that we’ve heard the demand for, and are planning to deliver. In the meantime, please bear with us and keep letting us know how we can make the site even better.

Want to stay up to date on the latest product news and releases? Add DPReview as a preferred source to ensure our independent journalism makes it to the top of your Google search results.

The Leica SL3-P is a high-speed, high-resolution L-mount full-frame camera built around a 44MP BSI CMOS sensor. It’s the latest in the company’s SL range and perhaps the most polished and all-round capable camera in the series so far.

Key specifications

• 44MP BSI CMOS full-frame sensor with phase detection
• up to 40fps shooting with AF in 12-bit mode. Up to 15fps in 14-bit.
• Subject recognition AF
• 8K open-gate video up to 24p (7.2K open-gate up to 30p)
• Full-width 8K (UHD or ∼DCI) up to 30p
• Full-width 4K up to 30p, 4K/60 and 4K/120 with increasing crops
• Content Credentials image certification
• Battery rated to 383 shots per charge
• IP54-rated all-metal construction

The Leica SL3-P will be available immediately at a recommended price of $6695 excluding tax in the USA, or €5990, including sales tax.

Index:

• What is it?
• How it compares
• Body and handling
• In use
• Video
• Autofocus
• Initial impressions
• Image quality
• Conclusion
• Specifications
• Leica press release

What is it?

Thus far, Leica has produced high-resolution SL models and high-speed SL-S versions. The SL-P appears to be something of an attempt to merge the two lines, offering both high speed and high resolution.

The result is something akin to Sony’s recent a7R VI or, perhaps more pertinently, the Panasonic S1RII: not an out-and-out sports camera but more a studio and landscape camera that’s happy to venture further afield. That Panasonic comparison is unavoidable as the 44MP, 40fps headline spec is shared between both cameras, as are their processors, even if the branding of them differs.

However, our experience of the SL3-P and the S1RII reminded us of how different you can make two cameras, even if you start with many of the same components and have similar destinations in mind.

Leica talks a good game about building cameras that last, and that’s immediately apparent in the feel and heft of the SL3-P. But what’s really striking is how few control points the Leica seems to have. That minimalism, honing the camera down to its core functions and little more extends to the menus and interface, meaning it gives a very different experience to the Panasonic. Or, indeed, any other mainstream camera.

How it compares

Although it offers both high speed and high resolution, the SL3-P doesn’t match the do-everything levels of capability of the Nikon Z8 and Canon EOS R5 II, with their stacked CMOS sensors. Instead it’s closer in ethos to the Sony a7R VI or, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Panasonic S1RII, essentially delivering a studio and landscape camera that isn’t scared of a little action, rather than a camera you might pick for sports work.

We’ve also compared it here to the SL3, which offers higher resolution but less speed, if absolute image quality is more important to you than the added speed.

It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that the SL3-P’s specs are a very close match for those of the S1RII. The differences between the two cameras aren’t something readily captured in a specs table.

The original SL3 offers a slight boost in resolution capture but at the cost of a lot of the new camera’s flexibility. Sony’s a7R VI offers both though: higher resolution and competitively fast shooting with excellent autofocus and slightly wider dynamic range. It’s hard to imagine how two user interfaces and user experiences could be more different, for two cameras ultimately trying to do the same thing, though.

Body and handing

The SL3-P uses the same body as the existing SL3 models: a solid, angular block of a thing with a few large control points and a substantial grip to wrap your hand around. The Leica branding across the viewfinder hump is so beautifully proportioned that it’s easy to assume that this series (and, perhaps, a series of film cameras before it), have always looked this way. So it was a shock to see the original SL in the company’s archives and see how far the design has evolved.

There are two buttons on the front of the camera, two on the top and one on the back, none of which have marked functions. Instead they can be re-programmed with a long press. In addition there are three marked buttons on the back of the camera: Play, Fn and Menu.

Then there are the three large command dials: one towards the front of the top plate, one protruding from the rear of the right shoulder and a third on the top left of the camera (which I kept forgetting about, as it’s such an unorthodox place to find one).

Beyond this there’s a small rubber joystick on the back of the camera, and that’s about it. Relatively few control points and still fewer dedicated ones. No switches for focus mode or AF area, not even the seemingly obligatory stills/movie switch: that’s controlled by swiping left or right on the rear screen.

We’ll touch more on the user interface in the ‘In use’ section of the review, but Leica is continuing to refine the rather elegant and focused interface it introduced in the SL3. For instance, in this latest camera, the company has re-worked the way you select a video mode: letting you select the parameters that are most important to you: frame rate, resolution, codec, etc, then filtering down the available list from a seemingly unmanageable 193 down to the handful that fit your requirements. It sounds obvious once you’ve seen it done, but it’s cleaner and simpler than most cameras we use.

Viewfinder and screen

The SL3-P has the same viewfinder as the other SL3 models: a 5.76M dot OLED panel (1600 x 1200px) with 0.76x magnification and a 21mm eyepoint. A large circular rubber cushion makes the camera comfortable to use if you wear glasses and there’s a -4 to +2 diopter adjuster set behind that cushion.

The rear screen is a 2.33M dot (1080 x 720px) panel mounted on a tilt up/down mechanism.

Ports

The SL3-P has the same port arrangement as its sister models, with 3.5mm headphone and mic sockets and a full-sized HDMI socket under a large, rubber flap on the left flank of the camera. Below these is a USB-C socket that can be used for data transfer (10Gbps), tethering (including to an iPhone) or charging.

Battery

The camera uses the same BP-SCL6 battery as its siblings: a 15.8Wh unit that powers the camera to a rating of 383 shots per charge, when tested to the CIPA protocol. As always, this tends to significantly under-represent the actual number of shots you can expect to get, but a rating of nearly 400 shots per charge is the sort of number that should means an enthusiast photographer rarely has to worry about topping-up on a day’s shooting. It’s only intensive shooting such a weddings, or anything involving a mixture of video and stills that are likely to call for you to have a spare to hand.

In use

One of the Leica’s most compelling aspects isn’t something you can see from product photos or interpret from the spec sheets: the user interface.

The SL3-P uses the latest iteration of the back-to-basics interface Leica has been refining over the past few years.

At its heart, it’s designed around putting the key photographic parameters at your fingertips and minimizing the extent of, and need for, menu options. For instance, holding down a customizable button or long-pressing any of the on-screen icons brings up a list of other functions you can assign to it. In fact one of the few options present in the main menu is one to filter-down which options are presented to you, when you long-press a control point to customize its function.

The result is an interface very focused on the fundamental settings of photography. It affords you the luxury of just ignoring what’s going on in the interface, much of the time, and just letting you concentrate on the settings assigned to the two big dials, and what you’re seeing in your viewfinder.

the rest are designed to be configured (and reconfigured) to suit your shooting style and preferences.

This minimalist approach extends to the body and its control points, too, with a smattering of custom buttons, a joystick and three large, solid-feeling command dials being your points of contact. It’s remarkable how few dedicated control points there are and while, for my shooting, I found myself sometimes wishing for an AF mode selector, with a little work it’s very likely that you can set the camera up in a way you find very quick and easy to work with.

Because it’s such a different way of working, the interface takes a little bit of getting used to, though. It rewards you for taking the time to adjust to its design philosophy. One aspect of which is learning to save your setup as a user profile, or risk discovering that selecting the default profile erases any customization you’ve started applying.

It’s also worth recognizing what is and isn’t included in these profiles. Exposure mode is, but specific exposure settings aren’t, so my attempt to build a profile for freezing the action and another one, with a slower shutter speed, for panning ended up being unsuccessful. Likewise, it’s worth carefully planning your profiles before saving them: I thought it would be handy to define a custom button to switch between profiles. Which was great until I pressed the button and switched to a profile with different custom buttons settings, so couldn’t get back.

Overall it works very well, though, giving a very photo-focused shooting experience where, for all the cleverness that modern cameras have brought, you end up remembering that the only things that really matter are shutter speed, aperture value, composition and where you’re going to focus.

Video

Despite us saying that the SL3-P has a very photo-focused interface, it’s probably better to say that it’s a very exposure-focused. Swipe left on the camera’s settings panel and you get a similar but now video-centric display, with yellow, rather than red accents.

The SL3 offers an incredible range of video modes: 157 in total. These range from 8K open-gate capture, that uses the full extent of the sensor, via 8K in either 1.89:1 or 16:9 aspect ratios and on to 4K capture, again with a choice of aspect ratios. But the camera also offers a selection of other resolutions for each of these capture regions, letting you strike a balance between resolution capture and speed.

Like Panasonic’s S1RII, the SL3-P doesn’t quite have enough pixels to capture DCI 8K (8192 x 4320px) footage so instead outputs 8132 x 4288px footage. UHD 8K is no problem, though, so you can also select the more conventional 7680 x 4320 resolution, if you prefer.

As you’d expect of a modern camera, you get the choice of 10-bit Log or HLG, or 8-bit if you don’t plan to color grade, and you’re targeting SDR displays.

Video options:

As with the Panasonic S1RII, the SL3-P has a Dynamic Range Expansion mode in video, which reads each exposure in both low conversion gain mode for maximum highlight capture and in high conversion gain mode, for cleaner shadows, and combines the two, to boost DR.

This is available in any resolution mode but only at frame rates up to 30p. In each case it increases the readout rate by around 33%. So, for instance, the UHD 8K/24 mode increases from 23.9ms to 31.9ms.

The SL3-P’s video options are, as you might expect, very similar to those of the Panasonic S1RII. It lacks the ProRes RAW option of that camera (though the 1.3x crop on the Panasonic’s Raw mode means it’s not the camera’s best feature). It also misses out on the waveform display option that the S1RII offers. Realistically, given its lower cost and the inclusion of a fan and more flexible rear screen, the S1RII is a better stills/video camera than the Leica. But, looked at the other way: as a primarily stills-focused camera, the SL3-P has a very broad set of very competent video features.

Autofocus

The Leica’s autofocus behavior is as innovative and unconventional as the rest of the UI.

The camera has three AF area modes, but offers more than three AF areas. The first is called “Spot / Field,” the second is called “Multi-Field / Zone” and the last is called Tracking.

The clue is in the forward slashes. Spot / Field lets you select a single AF point of various sizes, while Multi-Field / Zone lets you choose between an adjustable AF zone and all-area AF, where the camera selects a subject from anywhere within the frame. Once you’ve chosen an AF zone mode, you can adjust it by pressing the AF area on your rear screen or long-pressing anywhere on the live preview. This then lets you use the rear dial to adjust the focus area size.

Like Panasonic’s recent cameras, the camera will track recognized subjects when you have subject recognition turned on, but won’t track non-recognized subjects at all. So you’ll need to turn subject recognition on and off depending on what you’re trying to photograph. We’d definitely recommend configuring a button to do this.

By default, the camera’s Tracking AF mode gives you a small rectangle that resets to the center of the frame at the end of each burst. However, while you can’t change the size of the initial target, you can configure the tracking target to revert to wherever you last triggered it. So, for instance, if you want to track a car down through a series of curves, across your frame, then have the camera jump back to where the next car is likely to arrive, you can.

Autofocus performance

We were pretty impressed with the SL3-P’s autofocus performance. It doesn’t quite match the best of its peers in terms of apparent infallibility, but its subject detection is good and highly tenacious. Close examination showed that, while the camera is very quick to focus on fast-moving subjects and usually very effective at following them within the frame, it’s not always perfect at driving the focus to exactly the correct distance. We used a selection of primes and zooms with the SL3-P and got an excellent hit rate but motorsports felt like they were at the very limits of what the SL3-P can do.

Like the Panasonics, subject recognition is a separate mode from general tracking AF, so you’ll need to toggle in and out of a subject recognition mode if you want the camera to give its best performance for recognized subject types but still be willing to focus track the rest of the time. Interestingly, we didn’t encounter the failure to find focus that we saw very occasionally with the S1RII (though not the S1II, post firmware update).

It’s all a significant step forward for the SL series and helps contribute towards the sense that the SL3-P can handle pretty much anything. It’s only when compared with the very best (often pro-sports tested) systems that it falls a fraction short.

Initial impressions

The Leica SL3-P is the fastest-shooting camera Leica has ever made and should, in principle, be the only SL model they need to persist with. It offers an awful lot of what the SL3 offers, in terms of resolution, and it outperforms the more speed-focused SL3-S.

The subject recognition AF performs impressively well: finding subjects very quickly and following them well (especially when it’s a subject the camera has been trained to recognize). Just as the user interface as a whole takes some getting used to, it’s worth digging around in the menus and familiarizing yourself with the SL3-P’s AF logic before you go out shooting. Without an instruction manual it wasn’t obvious that Leica had grouped its AF area modes, or how to switch between them, nor that you can override the camera’s default behaviour when it comes to AF tracking.

Some issues you can’t overcome, though. The sensor is fast, but it’s not as quick as the best stacked CMOS sensors. So the camera will start showing a slideshow of the images you’ve just shot, when you’re shooting at its fastest rates, making it very difficult to keep pace with the action. Similarly, we were advised to shoot Raw-only and to disengage Content Credentials, to get the best performance.

Richard Butler

And, even with that done, the camera’s approximately 20ms (1/50 sec) readout rates in 12-bit mode mean that rolling shutter will be apparent if you’re trying to follow really fast action.

In this respect it’s a lot like the Sony a7R VI we recently reviewed: very fast for a high-res studio/landscape camera, meaning it’ll handle itself very confidently in a much broader range of circumstances than that. It’s not quite the high-res, high-speed all-rounder that Canon’s EOS R5 II and Nikon Z8 are, but it’ll still be more than enough camera for a very broad range of photographers, taking a very broad range of photos.

The challenge, as ever with Leica, is the price. It’s a beautifully built object, constructed in Portugal and Germany, that wears the Leica name and is likely to sell in relatively small numbers, when compared to the volumes of the large Japanese manufacturers. As such, the price is high.

For that money you get the fruits of some very clever design work, in a body that feels like it’s designed to last decades. However, parts availability and the continued march of technology (we can already see that sensors and AF will continue to get faster), will make it difficult to match the sense of longevity that a Leica film camera gave you. So, as always, part of the calculus comes down to: how important are those five letters to you?

Image quality

Studio test scene

Our test scene is designed to simulate a variety of textures, colors, and detail types you’ll encounter in the real world. It also has two illumination modes, full even light and low directional light, to see the effect of different lighting conditions.

As you might expect, there’s no meaningful difference between the Leica and the Panasonic in terms of detail capture (the very slight difference shows how good the comparison tool is at highlighting the smallest of differences in focus), or for that matter, the Nikon Z8. However, the 66MP Sony a7R VI clearly captures finer detail than its rivals.

A quick check in JPEG mode shows that the default color rendering of the SL3-P is distinct from that of the Panasonic, though, with differences appearing in the blues and caucasian skintone patch, in particular.

Beyond this, there aren’t any real surprises: noise performance is solid in Raw, very closely matching the performance of its peers. JPEG noise reduction looks similar to that of the Panasonic, with what appears to be more sharpening added, by default, to pull out detail. The Auto white balance also looks to be working harder to neutralize the tungsten light used for our low-light mode.

Conclusion

The SL3-P is an inherently difficult camera to review. Leica’s luxury pricing always makes its cameras hard to assess, because the concept of value has a personal component. This is made more pertinent when there are direct, like-for-like rivals at lower prices, and still more stark when some of these less-expensive rivals share significant amounts of their hardware and capabilities.

The SL3-P’s works rather differently from any other camera in its class, despite that commonality with other cameras. Its large, prominent finger and thumb command dials and comparatively small number of other control points, along with the large, relatively uncluttered viewfinder make clear that this is a camera centered on the most fundamental aspects of photography: exposure and composition. Everything beyond that is secondary.

It takes a while to get used to the SL3-P’s way of working, but once you have, and have set up user profiles for your different types of shooting, it’s really quite elegant. It means the SL3-P doesn’t have every possible bell or whistle that its rivals do, but it is refreshingly good at letting you just get on with your photography. And it’s a very capable camera: it delivers a good amount of resolution and dynamic range while also delivering Leica’s best-yet autofocus.

Unexpectedly, for a camera so focused on photography, the SL3-P has a strong video feature set. Swipe on the screen and you find a camera with 10-bit and ProRes 422 capabilities, a false color display for setting exposure and the ability to upload LUTs, either to give a corrected preview or to bake into your footage. It’s hard to tell how many SL3-P buyers will make use of the video capabilities, but those who do are unlikely to be disappointed, except, perhaps, by the battery life.

Richard Butler

Ultimately, though, there’s no getting away from the SL3-P’s price. Those five large, bold letters along the front of its viewfinder hump mean it’s priced unlike anything else on the market. Leica is an exclusive, luxury-priced brand: you either buy into its history, its mythos and its pricing model or you don’t. As the line of cameras with the most direct mainstream competitors, comparison is unavoidable, and it’s implausible, almost to the point of impossibility, that the SL3-P could be objectively so much better than its peers as to justify the price difference on rational grounds. No SL camera could ever be good enough to win over those people that don’t buy into the Leica brand.

Which is a shame as, aside from price, it’s one of my favorite cameras in its class. It’s supremely solid feeling, does a wide range of things very well and feels like a camera designed and developed by people who’ve prioritized photography over technology. But most of us aren’t in the position to ignore the price. And, because our rewards include a consideration of value, we can’t sensibly give it an award. Some people are going to love this camera: probably the best SL camera yet, but we can’t ignore the fact that you can buy a more technically capable camera for half the price.

Scoring

Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category. Click here to learn about what these numbers mean.

Compared to its peers

The Sony a7R VI is the rationalist’s choice, compared with the Leica. It has a similar stress on resolution while still offering very decent speed and video capabilities, but it does so while offering more resolution and slightly better dynamic range. It also has a higher resolution viewfinder and significantly longer battery life, it also uses the best-supported modern lens mount. However, we find it hard to imagine anyone who’s used both concluding that the Sony is better designed or nicer to use.

On paper, particularly in light of the L² technology sharing agreement, the Panasonic Lumix S1RII and SL3-P seem to be extremely similar cameras. In practice, it’s remarkable how different they are to use. The S1R II is covered in buttons and switches and its menus are full of options, whereas the SL3-P is much more pared-back. The Leica is also a fair bit larger and more substantial in the hand. Other than lens mount, using the Panasonic is much more like using a Sony or Canon than like using the Leica. And that user interface philosophy is one of the main distinctive things the SL3-P offers, compared to its rivals. The S1R II isn’t a half-price Leica and the SL3-P isn’t a modified S1R II.

If you’re really into sports photography or video production, the Nikon Z8 or Canon EOS R5 II are probably better choices. Both have stacked CMOS sensors that read out much faster than the Leica’s, meaning less rolling shutter impact in both stills and video shooting. Both also offer Raw video capability and, at the professional end of the market, an extensive pro support network. Both cameras offer a good degree of backward compatibility with their extensive SLR-era lens mounts but also exist in manufacturer-restricted but increasingly extensive lens ranges.

In many respects, the Leica SL3 is the SL3-P’s only direct peer, because it’s the only one that also buys you a Leica. The SL3 has the higher image quality, with a fraction more resolution and dynamic range, but without the video or autofocus performance of the faster SL3-P. The SL3 is perhaps the better choice if you’re primarily a landscape, studio or portrait photographer, but the SL3-P gives you greater flexibility if your shooting is more ad hoc and less prescribed.

Sample gallery

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.